getting to zero webinar - new buildings...

+

Getting to Zero Webinar April 26, 2012

+

About NASEO

Only national non-profit organization whose membership includes the 56 governor-designated energy officials from each state and territory

Improve the effectiveness of state energy programs and policies

Seven Regional Coordinators across the nation to aid in sharing lessons learned for successful policy and program replication

Act as a repository of information on issues of particular concern to the states and their citizens (e.g., financing, buildings)

Committee structure includes, Renewables, Electricity, Buildings, Industry, Energy Assurance, Financing, Government Affairs

Serve as the voice of SEOs in Washington, DC

+

Overview of State

Energy Offices

(SEOs):

56 Governor-designated State and Territory

Energy Offices (SEOs) nationwide.

States spur energy-related economic

development, minimize the environmental

impact of growth, crafting energy solutions

that address their citizens' needs and

increase our national energy security.

Funding for programs under the direction of

the governors or legislatures, as well as

federal appropriations for the cost-shared

U.S. State Energy Program.

SEOs invest $4 billion of their own funds

derived from appropriations, bonding, and

system benefit charges each year.

NASEO represents all 56 SEOs, and is

organized around seven regions with

coordinators that aid State and Local

governments in sharing lessons learned.

+ State Energy Offices and Net-Zero

Energy Buildings

ZEBs spur technology innovation and deployment and

economic development

ZEBs can provide a long-term vision and framework

for policy development

Growing interest and activity at the state and local

levels

+

Commercial buildings industry stakeholder group

Vision to transform commercial building sector to net-

zero energy by 2050

Achieves this by addressing technology and market

barriers through:

Public-private collaboration with U.S. DOE

Facilitating information exchange nationally

+ CBC Leadership: Steering

Committee Members

+

CBC Membership

Join at zeroenergycbc.org

Broad industry representation

includes:

Design professionals

Development, construction, financial and

real estate industries

Building owners and operators

Academic and research organizations

Building code agencies and

organizations

High-performance green building

organizations

Indoor air quality and intelligent

buildings experts

Utility energy efficiency programs

Manufacturers and providers of

equipment and techniques

Public transportation experts

Nongovernmental energy efficiency

organizations

+

Technology and Policy gaps and recommendation

reports

Next Generation Technologies: Barriers & Recommendations

Analysis of Cost & Non-Cost Barriers and Policy Solutions

Reviewed current landscape of activity and needs in ZEB across 13 different topics

Themes include:

Importance of integrated design

Need to address and minimize plug loads

Knowledge and analysis gaps in looking at system interactions and multi-building interactions

Connecting post-occupancy performance and energy management

Improved sharing of information, cost data, and performance data

Getting to Zero: 2012 Status Update

A look at the features and costs

of zero energy buildings

Dave Hewitt, NBI Executive Director,

Webinar presented on April 26, 2012

The Nature of Our Work

ZEBs STUDY SCOPE

• Looked at:

– Size and source of available quality data

– Energy Efficiency Measures

– Incremental costs

– Estimated incremental costs from

model-based studies

– State policies and program support

ZEBs STUDY SCOPE

• Net Zero Energy Buildings (ZEBs) – Buildings with measured results and a few modeled

buildings; meet annual needs with on-site renewables

• Zero Energy Capable Buildings (ZEC’s) – Demonstrated efficiency in range of ZEB’s but w/no

renewables

• Zero Energy Equivalent Buildings – Low-energy building that gets (investment grade)

renewable energy from off-site, either the grid or a shared renewable generator.

WHAT WE FOUND

• 21 buildings had sufficient data to call them ZEBs

• 39 buildings are recently constructed or in process with ZEB intentions

• 39 buildings are ZECs – Zero Energy Capable efficiency levels

•Always looking for more - there may be many more ZECs

What We Found: Built Examples

All buildings use PVs to generate

on-site renewable energy

Buildings use readily available

tech. and integrated design

Unique or experimental systems

are infrequently used

Priority attention to E.E. details

include minimizing plug loads

and other “unregulated” loads

2

1

4

3

What We Found

Vast majority of NZE buildings are small or very small

Beginning to see buildings supported by program efforts

– i.e. Living Buildings, Energy Trust of Oregon, Savings

by Design

Earliest are academic buildings, environmental centers,

or demonstration buildings with low occupancy

More recent include office buildings, K-8 schools, a

credit union, and buildings that represent a large

number of average buildings

5

6

7

8

ZEBs + ZECs By Type & EUI (total of 57 projects)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

bu

ildin

g c

ou

nt

ZE-Capable Counts by Type and Total EUI level

< 10 10 - 19.9 20 - 29.9 30 - 35.9Total EUI level

ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES

MEASURING THE COST OF ZEBs

Difficult to isolate cost of individual measures

– Deep energy savings require IDP that considers

interaction of measures.

– Incremental cost must be based on a hypothetical

comparison to “what would have been built”

– Even when attempts at costs and savings are made,

changes are often not tracked through many revisions

– Building costs vary by climate, location and date of

construction

– Good data on a few projects, but hard to generalize

10 4/27/2012

COST PREMIUMS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

low rise officemid rise office

mixed use renov.high rise mixed use

K-8 schoollow rise officemid rise office






K-8 school

Portl

and

Atla

nta

Phoe

nix

Bost

on

Energy-related cost premiums as % of base costs

Construction Owner design-build PV (net of credits)

Cascadia

GBC

Study:

ECM’s

5 -15%

of cost

PV

adds

5 - 15%

*Energy-related cost premium, with the costs associated with the other Living Building requirements removed.

COST PREMIUMS

PNNL and NREL

Studies

Cost premiums for

ee were below 5%

for the 20,000 SF

small offices

Cost premiums for

ee were in the 5 –

7% range for the

50,000 SF

medium offices

Policy and Programs

• California Strategic Plan/Action Plan/BBG

– Action Plan/Champions for Commercial Bldgs

– Savings by Design Program

• Oregon Legislation

– Energy Trust of Oregon program

• Massachusetts Zero Energy Policy

• Living Building Challenge

• Zero Energy Commercial Buildings

Consortium

Key Policy and Program Recommendations - ZECBC

• “… high levels of energy efficiency are the first,

largest and most important step on the way to

net-zero.”

• “Net-zero-energy buildings create a catalyst to

stimulate the thinking and actions required, even

if near-term needs are more related to

establishing key fundamentals that allow the

energy efficiency market to progress...”

• “There is need for a consistent, long-term metric

to measure the performance of buildings and

policy.”

Key Policy and Program Recommendations - ZECBC

• “The move to a zero-energy building stock will

likely require a series of major shifts in the

structure of codes, both in the presentation of

code requirements and in ensuring compliance.”

• “More measured performance data is needed at

the case-study level, the system level (e.g.,

lighting vs. plug loads) and to support owner and

private financing.”

• “There needs to be aggressive financial

incentives to achieve net-zero-energy building

goals.”

California ZNE Action Plan: Priorities Survey

• Focus more on existing buildings than on

new construction.

• California is on the right track with policy,

leadership is needed in other critical areas

-- Path to Zero Campaign, financing, incentives

• More support needed for implementation

efforts, tools and resources

– Case studies, implementation guides,

recognition programs and communications

Study Conclusions

• Examples are expanding and are more representative.

A “second generation” of more typical building types

and ownership patterns is emerging.

• More about integrated design than technology

innovation

• Built ZEBs examples too limited, diverse to conclude

much on costs

• EE needed is readily available at reasonably

incremental cost for some building types

- Incremental costs for common building types ranged from 3%

to 18% depending on building type, location cost factors and

climate (not including PVs)

Recommendations

• ZEBs and ZECs can advance more rapidly with

provision of practical guidance and support

- Clear conditions where ZEB’s are most feasible

(anticipated loads, climate)

- Case Studies Needed - techniques used, results, and

lessons learned with varying climates, building types

- Need better studies of costs/benefits - both initial design

and construction costs and ongoing energy costs savings

- Policy advances at the state and local level can

support the movement to ZEBs and ZECs –

setting a pathway to guide action.

A Quick Case Study Still to Come

If you have questions about the

study, please type them in now.

19 4/27/2012

Case Study Example

IdEAs Z2 | San Jose, CA

IDeAs Z2 Case Study

• 6,560 SF building in San Jose, CA

• Renovated 1960’s era building

• Great example of how common building

forms can be adapted to function NZE

office spaces

• New skylights, high performance

windows, and increased insulation

• Radiant heating system coupled with

ground source heat pump and

displacement ventilation

IDeAs Z2 Case Study

• Placed extra attention on minimizing

plug loads (both through selection

of equipment and controls)

• Controlled lighting with occupancy

and photosensors

IDeAs Z2 Case Study

• Employed custom control sequence to shut off

specified circuits when security system is armed

eliminates phantom loads and ensures equipment is off

at night

• Cost premium: 7% of the renovation construction costs

for energy efficiency related upgrades

Questions?

Study and additional information

available at

http://www.newbuildings.org/zero-energy




Net Zero EngineeringNet Zero EngineeringNASEO WebinarNASEO WebinarApril 26, 2012April 26, 2012

CMTA Consulting EngineersTony Hans, PE, RCDD, LEED AP

National Director of Sustainable Projects

AgendaAgenda

About Us:About Us:– CMTA & our Net Zero Philosophy

Net Zero:Net Zero:– Past and current Net Zero projects

Case Studies:Case Studies:– Energy Reduction Design Strategies

– Data from past Net Zero Projects

About UsAbout Us

Founded 1968

Located in Kentucky, Texas and Indiana

85 employees

Expertise is sustainability and energy efficiencyand energy efficiency

Nationwide practice focused on education and health care

About UsAbout Us

28 Professional engineers

46 LEED APs

4 RCDDs

6 Energy Modelers

15 Registered Commissioning Agents

4 Certified GeoExchangeDesigners

2 Certified Lighting Designers

LEED and ENERGY STARLEED and ENERGY STAR

Over 10 Net Zero Projects

25 LEED Projects

– 8 Gold

– 3 Silver

– 1 Certified

– 13 Registered– 13 Registered

62 ENERGY STAR Projects

– 56 Schools

– 8 with perfect scores of 100

Recognized ExpertiseRecognized Expertise

Greenbuild, TorontoNational Green Schools Conference, DenverCouncil of Educational Facilities Planners International (CEFPI), Net Zero Energy Symposium, DallasArmy Net Zero Energy Installation Conference, ChicagoNet Zero Energy Conference, Savannah SAMEAssociation for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), IndianapolisCouncil of Educational Facilities Planners International (CEFPI), Washington, DCCouncil of Educational Facilities Planners International (CEFPI), Washington, DCSchool Building Expo, PittsburghAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ (ASHRAE) Net Zero Conference, San FranciscoBuilding Industry Consulting Service International Annual Conference (BICSI), Las VegasASHRAE’s High Performance Schools Conference. AtlantaMidwest Healthcare Engineers, IndianapolisLightfair International in PhiladelphiaGreening the Heartland (USGBC Regional Conference), Cincinnati

Net Zero Net Zero –– Our PhilosophyOur Philosophy

1. Exhaustive study of building’s energy use.

2. Set an annual energy consumption goal to create a financial model.create a financial model.

3. Drastically reduce energy consumption.

4. Discuss Green Power Generation.

Net Zero Net Zero –– SchoolsSchoolsRichardsville Elementary

– 70,000 sf

– 348 kW solar PV

– 17kBtu/sf yr

– $204/sf w/solar PV

– 75% EUI Reduction

Turkey Foot Middle SchoolTurkey Foot Middle School

– 133,000 sf

– 22 kBtu/sf yr

– 440 kW solar PV

– $210/sf w/solar PV

– 70% EUI Reduction

Net Zero Net Zero –– CampusesCampuses

Locust Trace AgriScience Campus

Third Net Zero Energy School in Kentucky

70,000 Square Feet: Classrooms, Labs, Offices, Riding Arena

$180/sf with solar PV

LISD Center for a Sustainable FutureLISD Center for a Sustainable Future

Agri-Science Lab

Horticultural Lab

Greenhouse

Classrooms

Greenroof Learning Centers

Net Zero Net Zero –– Higher EdHigher Ed

Berea College

Deep Green Dormitory43,000 sf / 120 students

LEED Platinum (Target)

Petal Recognition (Water) under the Living Building Challenge

Net Zero ReadyNet Zero Ready

EUI of 30

Net Zero Net Zero –– OfficeOffice

CMTA Corporate Headquarters

– Energy Star – Perfect 100 (2 Years running)

– $175/sf (with phase I PV)

– 80% EUI Reduction – 80% EUI Reduction

Net Zero Net Zero –– GovernmentGovernment

Army Aviation Support Facility (AASF) – Boone National Guard Center

Harold L. Disney Training Center

DoS – Central America US EmbassyEmbassy

Energy PerformanceEnergy PerformanceCase StudiesCase Studies

Energy Benchmarking ReferenceEnergy Benchmarking Reference

ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guides

Climate Zone 2:

– ASHRAE 90.1 – 72 kBtu/sf yr

– 50% AEDG – 36 kBtu/sf yr– 50% AEDG – 36 kBtu/sf yr

Integrated Design ProcessIntegrated Design Process

Stakeholders all involved

– Regulatory agencies

– Owner

– Building users

– A/E

– Utility– Utility

– Police

Architect’s design was in response to energy goal

MEP Engineering StrategiesMEP Engineering Strategies

Integrated Design Process

Geothermal HVAC

Heat recovery

Demand Control Ventilation

Energy efficient lighting

DaylightingDaylighting

Kitchen efficiencies

Occupancy Lighting / BAS

Real-time monitoring

Solar thermal

Renewables: Solar PV & Wind

Geothermal HVAC SystemGeothermal HVAC System

Dual compressor or two-speed heat pump units

Part load efficiency

Distributive pumping

One heat pump per two One heat pump per two classrooms

Outside Air VentilationOutside Air Ventilation

Dedicated outside air systems (DOAS)

Heat recovery wheel

Demand control ventilation based on CO2 and occupancyoccupancy

Occupant diversity

LightingLighting

Daylight glass (20’ x 2’) with interior light shelf

View glass has exterior shade shelf

Supplemental tubular daylighting devices

0.75 w/sf artificial lighting with digital 0.75 w/sf artificial lighting with digital lighting control system

Lighting Lighting –– Unoccupied Unoccupied

Security Goals

– Interior

– Façade

– Parking

Thermal EnvelopeThermal Envelope

Efficient shape

ICF walls

No mezzanines

Low infiltration, avoided pitched and vented roof systemssystems

Non-daylight glass percentage minimized

Good roof insulation

(R-30)

ComputersComputers

Wireless laptop computers in classrooms

Computer carts instead of computer classroom

Equipment off at night

Reduced computer power consumption by 50% from similar “non-wireless” school

KitchenKitchen

Early High Performance data showed kitchen used 21% of energy

Few energy reductions made in past projects

Need to change paradigmNeed to change paradigm

Type II hoods

RichardsvilleRichardsville Energy UsageEnergy Usage

HVAC

44%

Kitchen

18%

IT

6%

Lighting

21%

Plugs

11%

Actual17.6 kBtu/sf yr

Turkey Foot Energy UsageTurkey Foot Energy Usage

Actual22 kBtu/sf yr

Richardsville Elementary Energy Model Richardsville Elementary Energy Model Comparison 2010 Comparison 2010 –– 2011 2011

1.5

2

2.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

kBTU

/sf

AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL

PROJECTED ACTUAL

Modeled: 17.2 kBTU/sf/yr

Turkey Foot Energy Turkey Foot Energy Model Model Comparison Comparison 20112011

Lighting Lighting -- MonthlyMonthly

Richardsville HVAC Richardsville HVAC –– MonthlyMonthly

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Actual ASHRAE 50% Reduction

Plug/Process Loads 2011Plug/Process Loads 2011

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL

kBTU

/sf

Richardsville Elementary HVAC EnergyRichardsville Elementary HVAC Energy

Phase I

– 60% of Required Generation

– Operational February 2011

– 208 kW Thin Film

– 245 MWh/yr electric production

Phase II

Richardsville PV System Phase I and IIRichardsville PV System Phase I and II

Phase II– 100% of Net Zero Generation

– Operational December 2011

– 138 kW On Shade Structure

– Delayed For Old School Demolition

– 163 MWh/yr Electric Production

Electric Utility Summary Electric Utility Summary -- RichardsvilleRichardsville

Read Days of Amount Energy Demand Total Generation

Date Service Due Cost Cost Cost Credit

3/15/12 29 ($2,436) $2,416 $1,826 $4,242 ($6,805)

2/14/12 30 $691 $2,974 $1,883 $4,857 ($4,166)

1/16/12 33 $273.94 $2,210 $1,800 $4,010 ($3,235)

12/14/11 29 ($622) $2,612 $1,595 $4,207 ($1.640)

11/17/11 29 ($3,189) $2,694 $1,440 $4,135 ($2,618)

10/17/11 32 ($4,705) $2,915 $1,840 $4,755 ($4,169)10/17/11 32 ($4,705) $2,915 $1,840 $4,755 ($4,169)

9/15/11 30 ($5,252) $3,544 $2,274 $5,819 ($5,215)

8/16/11 29 ($5,857) $3,162 $2,301 $5,464 ($6,728)

7/18/11 32 ($4,592) $2,355 $1,274 $3,629 ($6,665)

6/16/11 30 ($1,555) $2,846 $1,953 $4,799 ($6,288)

5/17/11 32 ($66) $2,887 $1,788 $4,675 ($4,440)

4/15/11 30 ($301) $2,427 $1,511 $3,938 ($4,239)

Net Zero Energy Net Zero Energy MWhMWh Summary Summary -- RichardsvilleRichardsvilleMWh MWh MWh

Consumed Generated Difference

(Predicted)

March-12 30.6 31 (0.4)

February-12 33.8 22 11.8

January-12 26.0 16 10

December-11 29.2 15 14.2

November-11 31.8 20 11.8

October-11 30.4 32 (1.6)October-11 30.4 32 (1.6)

September-11 38.1 41 (2.9)

August-11 28.0 48 (20.0)

July-11 28.4 54 (25.6)

June-11 28.1 51 (22.9)

May-11 34.1 45 (10.9)

April-11 27.7 38 (10.3)

Total 367 413 (46)

Let’s Talk AffordabilityLet’s Talk Affordability

Thank YouThank You

Tony Hans

[email protected]

Diana Lin, Program Manager, [email protected]

Dave Hewitt, Executive Director, [email protected]

getting to zero webinar - new buildings...

Documents